Recommended Posts

There has been a facebook post outlining issues, some serious, within the CPS committee.  The post also provided corrective actions that have been proposed. However, the post also indicated that differences of opinion with a number of current committee members. Rather than respond in facebook I thought CPUK may be more appropriate. 

A) Could the membership be fully informed of the reputed issues?

B) I would like to see the views of those accused of bringing the CPS into disrepute?

C) I would like to see the proposals in detail for the corrective action with timescales?

I've been a member for a long time. I'm as keen as everbody else to see this sorted but transparency and member backing are essential for this, and the society, to suceed.

Cheers

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must have missed the fb post,but would be interested to see what is going off.

It's always been good to get things out in the open to stop Chinese whispers and get both sides so everyone gets a fair chance to have their say.

Ada

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a personal response and not on behalf of the Committee. I am sure that we will also have a formal response from the Committee in due course.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

To start with I would like to state that I agree with many of the intentions that Annette initially stated as aspects of the CPS that she wanted to review. The website for example does look dated and clunky and really does need a makeover/restart. 

 

I have only been on the committee a relatively short while and I hope that everyone who knows me would understand that I have only ever tried to work to the benefit of the Society and members. I certainly don’t have any long standing personal disagreements with anyone. 

 

I believe that all and any actions that I have ever taken were within the law and also within the remit of the governing  document. I will of course continue to work within remit of the governing document of the Society and will also absolutely respect the written advice of the Charity Commission.

 

I have no concerns about long standing, respected members such as Stephen Morley joining the executive of the Society but conversations with the Charity Commission have raised concerns about how this was done.

 

Personally I am unclear how we have reached this point. However I do want to understand this.

 

Today I have submitted written instructions to start a formal process under UK law to clarify the statements made above by Annette as I have not yet seen any evidence to support these, despite repeated requests.

 

I have no wish to tarnish the reputation of anyone involved but I will pass on the results of this process to the wider membership in due course so that we can have absolute clarity on these issues.

 

Regards,

Steve

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the various responses - hopefully this won't run on Facebook and I invite both sides to present their case to the membership, with supporting evidence, at their earliest opportunity. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't find this on here; I do hope it hasn't been censored! But this is an important message from the acting Chair of the Carnivorous Plant Society.

 

Sent on behalf of Annette Bell. Please all read...

 

Dear Members,
On 12th November 2018, I gained unanimous support from the committee to become Chairman and Trustee of The Carnivorous Plant Society (CPS). It has been a huge honour to be able to serve the membership and I take this role seriously. In recent months I have uncovered various shortcomings in the administration and governance of the CPS, including failing to comply with the formal requirements for a charity, as set down by the Charity Commission. This includes a lack of administrative structure, absence of records and minutes, and lack of accountability for decisions taken or money spent. The committee has a poor reputation for in-fighting and hostility which sometimes spills into the public eye. Many individuals, including a former Chairman and Martin Cheek have stated similar opinions that the committee has been ‘dysfunctional’ and ‘toxic’ for years. I believe things must change for the benefit of our charity and its membership.
A trustee’s responsibilities include a duty of care to protect the reputation and direction of their charity, to ensure that it fulfils its legal obligations and that the money it raises is spent in furtherance of the objects. The Charity Commission (CC) guidance is clear about what a trustee must do in these circumstances, and it is a mandatory requirement to notify them of any incidents which might damage the charity. The problems were duly reported on 8th February 19. The CC will only intervene if necessary - and I provided them with a list of proposals for how I intended to resolve our issues and move forwards. The CC have accepted this plan to get the CPS back on track.
The plan includes various administrative corrections including new, clearer rules. I have also asked for the resignation of certain committee members and trustees whose behaviour and actions have frequently fallen short of the expected requirements of someone holding office within a charity. Some of these committee members and trustees have refused to step down in the best interests of the Society and have attempted to rebel against the Chairman.
In the report to the CC, a proposal was made to instate an interim board of trustees to administer the charity alongside myself and the other, currently rebelling, trustee. This is necessary to take us out of a dead-lock situation. On 1st March a letter was sent to recap my discussion with the CC officer on 28th Feb 19, and which asked to place my intentions on record to recruit trustees.
Acting in good faith after these communications, I used my powers to recruit an interim board of upstanding and well-respected members of our community to become caretaker trustees to help the CPS recover from this crisis. All persons are willing to stand as candidates for formal election at an AGM – hence the self-imposed interim status until that point. I would like to introduce Stephen Morley, Claire Farrer, David Tite and Andrew Loakes – hopefully names which many of you will recognise. All are all willing to serve our Society properly.
As alluded to, the request for resignations has met with resistance despite the fact that there is written evidence of dereliction of duty concerning some of those involved at the heart of this rebellion against charity guidelines. The rebels have tried to silence my voice; they will not succeed, and it is with regret that I have been forced to make this situation public.
I invite you, the members, to decide how our charity should be governed. You have a choice: do you wish to continue with the existing regime and way of doing things, or would you prefer a new direction with two-way communication, fairness and accountability? Whatever you decide, The Carnivorous Plant Society deserves a secure and stable future for the benefit of all. I hope to be a part of that with you all,

Annette Bell

de facto Chairman.

Edited by Loakesy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure they would be willing to Dunc, but Annette seems to have been banned from CPUK for some odd reason...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

new rules to run the society better are welcome at any time,but who has been accused of what?  names please,proof?  many of the people who give their time freely are genuine people trying to do a job,many miles apart from others and getting together can be awkward.

I'm all for moving forward and modernising but totally against being dictated to by one person or a committee ran by the old friends network when you don't know who is pulling the strings.

The problem is anyone who takes any position has to make decisions that won't suit all people,all of the time. Then the bickering starts and that's why anyone with any sense keeps well out of it,so in the end its everyones fault and we get what we deserve.

and the answer is  NO.

ada

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember a few years ago going to a Kew open day where not many people turned up. But while waiting to go in a couple of the committe members who did not not introduce themselves but spent the whole time bad mouthing other committe members. Not a very impressived show! And had seen similar siturations at a CPS Reading meeting.  Been in too many clubs and societies where Big Name members or organisers seemed to more important than the ordinary member...  So hopefully any changes will be for the better not more of the same just with different people!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hi

If you don't know me my name is Dennis Balsdon and I was Mrs Bell's predecessor as Chair of the CPS.

In the past few years:

We have hosted the European CP Exhibition and Exchange.
We have hosted the International Plant Society Conference at Kew Gardens which was attended by Sir David Attenbdorough and over 160 of the leading botanists and growers from around the world at which we made a profit in excess of £5000.
We have introduced new CP events and shows at RHS Wisley, RHS Harlow Carr, RHS Rosemoor,  RHS Tatton Park, The National Botanical Garden of Wales and at Birmingham Botanical Gardens.
Members of the committee have given over 200 talks at garden clubs and at other institutions including the RHS.
For the last two years we have been invited to the RHS Chelsea Garden Show at which we won silver gilt medals.
We have made grants from our conservation fund to 6 organisations both in the UK and overseas which are involved in plant/habitat conservation.
We took over the CPUK forum when it was in danger of folding.
We have tried to promote our relationship with the UK's commercial growers.
We have maintained our membership numbers at over 300 for the last ten years at a time when many specialist plant societies are shedding members.

All this has been done by a dedicated group of volunteers who give of their time, expertise and in many cases their own money in order to enable the Society to achieve its objectives.  Some of these volunteers have served on the committee for decades.

For part of this time Mrs Bell filled a number of minor roles on the committee.  We have always had difficulty in recruiting new members onto the committee (particularly for the position Chair) but in the last year we have managed to recruit a new membership secretary, a new seed bank organiser and a new conservation officer (Loakesy).

Late last year I decided that due to my advancing age and health issues it was time that a younger person took over from me.  Mrs Bell volunteered to be Chair and was elected by unanimous vote of the remaining committee.  I was elected by the committee to be a non-executive trustee of the Society.  Mrs Bell was appointed as a trustee by virtue of being the Chair.

Following her appointment as Chair I pointed out to Mrs Bell administrative issues which I thought needed to be improved and she had the support of me and the committee in making those improvements.

Mrs Bell then undertook a review of the Society's procedures but rather than make those changes in cooperation with the committee she decided to write to the Charity Commission in which she claimed that the Society was so badly administered that she wished to dissolve it and form a new organisation to replace it.  She has stated on many occasions that the Commission had approved this action but has not been able to produce evidence of this approval.  She then proposed that a Special General Meeting be held with the aim of dissolving the Society.

It was at this stage that opposition to her arose from the committee members.

She then persuaded me to resign as a trustee implying that this was supported by the committee.  This was not true.  She also persuaded Tim Bailey (my predecessor) and Flick Foreman (a past treasurer) to also resign as trustees.  The only other remaining trustee was Phil Wilson (the current treasurer) who refused to resign.  

In this letter she made a number of accusations to the effect that the Society was so badly administered that it should be dissolved and replaced by a new organisation, that there were financial irregularities, that decisions were improperly made and that we had no records of those decisions.

Taking these points in turn:  I and the committee accepted that some changes to our administrative practices needed to be made;  there have been NO financial irregularities, all expenditure has been made in furtherance of the Society's objectives, receipts are held for all expenditure and the accounts are published at the AGM and End of Season meetings;  the committee is spread out across the country and 99% of all decisions are made via email.  We have these emails going back at least 10 years.  During her time on the committee Mrs Bell took part in these decisions.  We have the minutes of all AGMs except for 2017 and 2018.  This was a recognised oversight.

As a trustee Mrs Bell had access to the the Society's file on the Charity Commission website.  She changed the password to this file so that the other trustee could not access it.

Despite not having any agreement from the Charity Commission for her actions she wrote to the Commission stating that she was appointing four new trustees (one of whom is not a member of the Society) and that she and they would form a "board" to takeover the Society.  She has repeatedly stated that she has approval for this action from the Commission but has but is unable to produce it despite many requests.

The committee passed a vote of no confidence in Mrs Bell and removed her as Chair.  She was replaced as Chair by Phil Wilson who will serve until we can find permanent replacement.

She has ignored this vote and now describes herself as de facto chair and de facto trustee.

Her actions have brought the Society into disrepute to the detriment of its reputation, its members and the achievement of its charitable objectives.

I know that the committee is determined to defend the Society.

Dennis

 

 

 

 




 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Admin note: I've merged the two topics relating to this matter together in their entirety.  Anyone can post.  Forum rules (2004) apply.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Statement from the Committee of the Carnivorous Plant Society

Registered Charity 281423

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

This is a copy of the email which we will send to our members very shortly.

 

The Carnivorous Plant Society has been suffering an unprecedented attack from inside its very structure. We have been fighting to retain the society in its current form but there are people, supposedly with the best interests of the society in mind, who are fighting an insidious battle to destroy everything that we have.

The following is a descriptive statement of events that have occurred within the committee of the CPS in the past five months. This is not yet resolved and the threat is still very active. We wanted to wait until this is completely resolved before informing you, the membership but recent events including a post on Facebook has forced us to issue a statement to you, the members. You have the right to know what is going on.

Sequence of Events

On 2nd November 2018, Mrs Annette Bell returned to the Committee as Events Manager after a break. Annette made it known to another Committee member that she would like to take the position of Vice Chair, vacant at that time.

On 11th November Annette indicated to Dennis Balsdon that she would like to stand for Chair at the 2019 AGM as Dennis would not be standing for re-election. A vote was proposed and seconded. The vote passed and Annette would stand for Chair.

On 15th November Dennis resigned as Chair and Annette became acting Chair by default. Dennis was proposed, seconded and voted in as a non-executive Trustee.

Please note that Annette has NEVER been voted as a Trustee.

On 20th November Annette nominated Flick Foreman to be vice Chair: quote ‘this matter is open to a Committee vote – a simple yay or nay is all that is required’. This first vote under Annette was not held correctly at her own instigation. While this may seem trivial at this stage you will realise the significance further down this document.

At 15:09 on 20th November Annette was involved in a discussion on electronic media and proposed to call an SGM on 16th December to dissolve the CPS. In this discussion, Annette also ADMITS there is NO ALLOWANCE FOR TRUSTEES in the Governing Document. She also suggested the SGM would not have to be a physical meeting. An option she suggested was to form another charity and move all the ASSETS over – NO mention of the people.

On 21st November Annette published a plan for taking the CPS forward. The plan included a motion to abolish the current rules and revert to the 1981 Governing Document. This document would be updated prior to the AGM and presented for acceptance by the membership. The plan made plain that we must operate legally. In this planning document, Annette called ‘for a simple vote to abolish the rules and revert to solely the Governing Document’. A very good idea, BUT this was the second vote incorrectly held under Annette.

On 9th December Annette sent an email to the Committee ‘As you may be aware, Tim and Dennis have formally resigned as Trustees’. This was a great surprise to me as I communicated with Dennis quite often. Dennis informed me that Annette had requested his resignation and told him it was a Committee decision.

This had NEVER been discussed in Committee or voted upon. Annette was not telling the truth to Dennis.

11th December. Annette released to the Committee the results of the member survey. This showed that 62.63% of members responding valued the Charity status as important. 

20th December. Annette had ‘three companies lined up to give us a quote for a new website (starting with two home visits first week of Jan)’. 

We know that the website needs to be updated and the whole Committee is keen to see this done. This represents a very large financial commitment. We had a meeting to discuss a general plan but, without further consultation, Annette has taken this on as far as asking for quotes from companies that she has unilaterally selected. There has been no sitemap agreed by the Committee, no auditable due diligence (required in any organisation for such a large capital expenditure) and no agreement about budgets.

To date, the Committee has not been notified of any progress in this matter. We haven't even been told the specification for it despite numerous requests for information.

31st December. A complaint from a member whose membership had lapsed some three years previous; that the seed they received was not labelled.

14th January 2019. Choices for the Forum were debated so Annette formally asked the Committee if the CPS should ‘ditch the shackles and reform as a sociable, grower’s society’.  Note the word ‘society’, NOT Charity.  

Finally, we had been asked if we should exit Charity status. It was pointed out to Annette that under the Governing Document the Society could not cease to be a charity at law. If the CPS is taken out of charity status – dissolved – then the assets ‘shall be given or transferred’ to another charity ‘with the approval of the charity commissioners’.

At this point, it was suggested to Annette for the first time that the Committee seeks a legal opinion.

15th January. On Messenger, Annette wrote ‘I think we should fold as a charity and re-emerge as a society. We can under charity law donate our money to another society or cause with a similar aim. Our new society fits that’. Quite clear evidence of Annette wanting to make the assets go somewhere else.

In this conversation, Annette was advised to get ‘proper legal advice'.

24th January. Flick Foreman informs Annette she is resigning. 28 minutes later Annette requests Flick to sit on it as she is not ready.

25hJanuary. A complaint of seed not growing true. These seeds were sent out in October 2018. The propagator is needed to ensure compliance with Trading Standards and to protect the reputation of the CPS.

27th January. Fiona Wowra, Secretary and Seedbank organiser requested the purchase of a small propagator in order to test grow seeds and prove viability and species. This would clear us with Trading Standards if a complaint was made. All plants grown could be sold to recoup costs. Fiona was prepared to cover the electricity costs herself, this was in response to another complaint being made as to the type of seeds sent from the seed bank.

7th February. Flick Foreman resigned. Annette comments ‘I am so sorry to hear this, you will be missed’

Annette heard it on 24th January. Deception? I don’t know BUT NOT RIGHT.

8th February. Trustee and Treasurer Phil Wilson received a letter from Annette requesting his resignation as a Trustee. The letter was dated on 6th February.

Phil called for a Committee vote on his resignation. You can imagine the surprise when a vote for Phil to resign is received from Annette’s MOTHER, Mrs Hayes, who is not a Committee member.

Annette tried to laugh this off as a mistake in sending her mother the wrong email. As the email from Mrs Hayes was sent directly to the Committee email forwarder this could not be a mistake. The only way for this to happen was for the recipient to be copied, or blind copied into the email discussion. Annette breached the trust of the Committee and members by sending emails to non-Committee members.

If a Trustee cannot be trusted then there is no room for them within the CPS.

The Committee received an email from Annette with an attached letter to the Charity Commission. In this letter, Annette alleges numerous illegalities and failings by the Committee. Ignoring that she has been on the Committee for quite some time she blamed every other person. Annette also declared that by having only two Trustees we were inquorate and unable to function. This declaration has been proved to be untruthful in a recorded telephone call – recorded with permission – to the Charity Commission. The ruling document is our Governing Document. As there is NO MENTION of Trustees in that document it DOES NOT MATTER how many Trustees we have. The RECOMMENDED minimum is three but that is not a legal requirement. At the same time, Annette declared that, apart from mid-progress transactions, ALL financial transactions are not allowed and that the bank account was frozen. This meant that we were not allowed, by Annette, to send seeds, memberships or other products IN CONTRAVENTION of Trading Standards thereby placing the CPS against the law.

9th February Flick rescinds her resignation in disgust at Annette. Annette refuses to reinstate her on the Charity Commission website.

12th February. Dennis rescinds his resignation as he felt he has been misled. Dennis asked to be reinstated but this has not happened.

Annette forwards this email from Dennis to Mr David Tite.

Mr Tite is NOTa member of the CPS let alone a Committee member. Pure and simple GDPR breach which Annette claims to be for advisory purposes. NO. NOT LEGAL.

During this time the Committee and remaining Trustee have made numerous requests for information from Annette but all we get is NO. To certain members of the Committee, she would send messages similar to ‘I will make a statement this afternoon but I need to go shopping first' or ‘news today, promise'. 

In another electronic conversation, Annette says ‘Dennis needs to allow change is what I mean, not just move aside into events to keep an eye that we run things his way. I'm nobody's lapdog'.

Annette also claimed that the CPS had been placed into Special Measures (‘Under Review’) and that she has the authority of the Charity Commission to create an interim board of Trustees to run the CPS. In a permitted recording of a call the Charity Commission they have confirmed THIS IS NOT TRUE and they have NO RECORD of the Society being placed under ‘Special Measures’. 

Because of this claim, she has registered four other people as new Trustees.  They were appointed without the knowledge or involvement of the one remaining legitimate Trustee, Phil Wilson or indeed brought before the committee for their consideration or endorsement.  There was no discussion, no consideration, no evaluation; it was just presented as a fait accomplis.

Whilst they may or may not be suitable as Trustees, this is not the point under question. Their appointment is NOT LEGALbecause new Trustees can only be appointed with the agreement of the existing Trustee(s). Because she acted alone, without taking due diligence into account, their tenure is highly questionable and dubious.  

We keep asking for documentation from Annette to prove what she says. She will not or cannot provide it. How can anyone believe her?

A vote of no confidence in Annette was passed by a significant majority of the Committee on Monday 4th March; this included votes from persons whom Annette claimed to have supported her.  An extract of an email from one of those ‘supporters’ sent to the Committee by Annette on 4th March shows no date and no header. When was it written? Why not forward the email and therefore show the date and timestamp?  The options expressed in this extract were obviously no longer valid as that person voted in favour of the motion of no confidence. People are always entitled to a change of opinion.  

On 6th March, Phil Wilson wrote to Annette Bell ‘The commission recommend that where a charity has internal disputes that it seeks mediation through an official arbitrator.’ ‘I would like to go to mediation with you.’ ‘Go to mediation, get a result that we both have to accept and we can move forward.’. There was NO response from Annette.  

Annette has claimed that no records of votes, minutes of meetings etc. are available, this is NOT TRUE. The records have been sent to the Charity Commission as proof, in a serious complaint.

If YOU, the member, wish to see these minutes or comment on the content of this statement with either support or criticism, please email [email protected] and quote your name and membership number. 

We are taking legal action and have registered a serious complaint with the Charity Commission.

A full report is being compiled for submission to another legal entity with a request for action.

 

Signed on behalf of and with the authorisation from your Committee,

Ron Satterthwaite

Membership Secretary. [email protected] 

  • Thanks 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis,    thank you for taking the time to explain this at length to all the members on here.

I have known you and Phil for many years and trust you both without question.

The new(old) or ex chair person or woman ,i don't know.   She might have good intentions but going about it the way she has,i.e   forcing people to resign is wrong.

How can she dissolve a society that is prospering? O.K anyone can moan about this or that but it worked.

It sounds like it was a bad decision to let her in at all, i can see a point of bringing in new blood to run a newer more modern society but to kick out the very bones that has made it what it is,is wrong.  You need some experience behind you when you take over something like this and should be willing to listen to all points of view from everyone and not just bulldozer your own thoughts straight in regardless.

ada

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NOT A LEG TO STAND ON.springs to mind.

Anyone who values the society should have nothing to do with her,anyone who thinks they were appointed by her to do a job should resign,  they are there illegally.

i think she saw the money!   A step backwards but the society will come out of it better and stronger.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Dennis and Ron for the detailed account of events. Interesting to read, but a bit sad that its come to this position.  I do hope it gets sorted swiftly and, like ada, hope the society come out stronger from this. Probably some important actions to address as soon as this is over.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To say I am stunned by the allegations made by Annette would be a serious understatement. 

I left the committee a few months ago after running the seed bank for almost 12 years and the committee described by Annette is not the committee I recognise. All of them have worked hard to ensure that everything is done properly and above board. Every member of the committee has done their job with the interests of the membership at heart. I would love to see evidence as described by Annette, so far I believe she has produced none.

Many of the current committee have been in their positions for many years and it is just wrong to treat them in this way. They give up their time to keep things running smoothly. Okay there are problems, journals are late being one of them, but they have done and still do their best.

The chairman as far as I can tell has no authority to demand committee resignations. It must be a full committee decision and I believe Annette has overstepped her authority in demanding that some long standing committee members resign. If they have brought the society into disrepute in any way let us see the  evidence and the members can decide the way forward with a proper vote.. 

The entire committee have agreed that they have no confidence in Annette as the chair of the society and that is an agreed vote and therefore a legitimate committee decision. As Annette is no longer chair, she no longer has the right to a trustee position either. The people she took on as trustees without committee consent should be removed as trustees until this is sorted and settled. They may be suitable as trustees, but they need to be legitimately selected. If Annette believes she has the support of the  members, then let us have a proper vote at the AGM in May, when she has the right to stand against whoever takes her place temporarily for now.

This is your society. It is not up to Annette to decide it will be dissolved. If Annette and her friends want to start a new organisation, they are welcome to do so, but it seems they want to do that and take your money with them. I do hope that should it come down to a vote at the AGM, that you will all support your very loyal, long standing committee. All committee records are open to member scrutinisation. Please do ask to see evidence, not just from the committee who have my full support, but from Annette who so far is full of accusations without showing anything to back it all up.

 

Sheila

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone think Annette will have the nerve to actually turn up at the AGM? I will certainly be backing the long standing and hard working committee. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Carnivine said:

Does anyone think Annette will have the nerve to actually turn up at the AGM? I will certainly be backing the long standing and hard working committee. 

Might be the best AGM in years if Annette attends! Will be standing room only.....

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there are definitely 2 sides to every story! Being one of the people Annette appointed as a Trustee I would have to say that Annette gives a very different account of the issues to the version given above!  The push for change to modernise the society and comply with Charity Commission regulations has not just come from Annette, but also some current and ex committee members! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/13/2019 at 5:21 PM, ada said:

NOT A LEG TO STAND ON.springs to mind.

Anyone who values the society should have nothing to do with her,anyone who thinks they were appointed by her to do a job should resign,  they are there illegally.

i think she saw the money!   A step backwards but the society will come out of it better and stronger.

Adrian, there’s no money in it for anyone, all positions are voluntary as I’m sure you know. 

I believe that Annette is still technically chair of the committee, as the correct procedures were not followed to remove her.  She is also still a Trustee. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 1:32 PM, dennisB said:

 

Hi

If you don't know me my name is Dennis Balsdon and I was Mrs Bell's predecessor as Chair of the CPS.

In the past few years:

We have hosted the European CP Exhibition and Exchange.
We have hosted the International Plant Society Conference at Kew Gardens which was attended by Sir David Attenbdorough and over 160 of the leading botanists and growers from around the world at which we made a profit in excess of £5000.
We have introduced new CP events and shows at RHS Wisley, RHS Harlow Carr, RHS Rosemoor,  RHS Tatton Park, The National Botanical Garden of Wales and at Birmingham Botanical Gardens.
Members of the committee have given over 200 talks at garden clubs and at other institutions including the RHS.
For the last two years we have been invited to the RHS Chelsea Garden Show at which we won silver gilt medals.
We have made grants from our conservation fund to 6 organisations both in the UK and overseas which are involved in plant/habitat conservation.
We took over the CPUK forum when it was in danger of folding.
We have tried to promote our relationship with the UK's commercial growers.
We have maintained our membership numbers at over 300 for the last ten years at a time when many specialist plant societies are shedding members.

All this has been done by a dedicated group of volunteers who give of their time, expertise and in many cases their own money in order to enable the Society to achieve its objectives.  Some of these volunteers have served on the committee for decades.

 

This sounds like the community that I signed up too. 
 
Many thanks to everyone that makes it so, not been around here long but already I have been to events at Kew, Wisley and to a few of the great nurserys we have in this country. There's been adventures enjoyed, much more to be had, new friends made. The army grows. 
 
I look forward to the future :)
 
Dean
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, gardenofeden said:

Well there are definitely 2 sides to every story! Being one of the people Annette appointed as a Trustee I would have to say that Annette gives a very different account of the issues to the version given above!  The push for change to modernise the society and comply with Charity Commission regulations has not just come from Annette, but also some current and ex committee members! 

True Stephen, and I'd like to hear both sides. But, not on Facebook.  I think a members only area should be set up on the society web pages and all the evidence from both parties deposited there for the membershìp to review. As I doubt this will be easily resolved I think it should then be for the membership to decide. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning Stephen,     i know people do all the work voluntarily.

the comment i made was more at Annette wanting to dissolve the society and give the money to something/somewhere/somebody else. If none on the existing members or commitee were members of this new set up because they hadn't been invited to join or being elected because they hadn't being made aware of this infighting.

who would have got the money then??

technically only the members of the new club or society she had made up would be able to share the money out and with her being a trustee,it smells very fishy to me.

Iam all for moving forward and modernisation but done properly,if she has nothing to hide why hasn't she provided the evidence or answered any questions put forward?

ada

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now